Talk:Kent Hovind

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon creationism.svg

This Creationism related article has been awarded GOLD status for quality. Please keep this in mind when editing the article.

This article is of HIGH importance to the wiki.

See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Goldenbrain.png
Information icon.svg Cover Story
This article is, among others, randomly included on the Main Page.
Please keep this in mind and be sure that your edits are of the quality that this implies.
Its front-page abstract can be found here and its editnotice here.
Icon sociology.svg This article contains information about one or more living persons.

Articles about living people must be handled carefully, because they are more open to legal threats.
Reference any contentious allegations solidly; unreferenced allegations should be removed.
If legal threats are raised on this page, please direct the potential litigant to RationalWiki:Legal FAQ; do not interact with them.

This page is automatically archived by Archivist
Archives for this talk page: <1>

Contents

[edit] Silver?

This article looks like it's worthy of silver to me. Anyone else?--JorisEnter (talk) 10:01, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

It's certainly been picked over enough reference-wise - David Gerard (talk) 15:55, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
I'd not only support Silver, I'd support Gold (compare in length and comprehensiveness of text to this Gold-rated article of a similar nature). Anyone with me on that? Goat knows we should front more with the great content that we actually have sitting around. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:43, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
It probably meets most of the silver criteria, apart from the illustrations.--JorisEnter (talk) 16:44, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Cover story

So how far to Gold? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:23, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
The criteria for gold articles are:
  • The topic is highly relevant to RW's mission.
  • Article is essentially a "go to" resource for the topic at hand.
  • Article covers all aspects of the topic at hand in-depth.
  • It is fully referenced with appropriate internal and external links, and categories.
  • Where necessary and possible, the article is supported by others that are of a good quality (e.g., homeopathy and water memory).
  • The cover status has been discussed and agreed on the talk page. This last criterion is the most important.
It is super-relevant to the mission, probably a go-to resource for information on Hovind, I'm pretty sure it has good coverage of all the aspects of Hovind's activities, is fully referenced, and is supported by at least the article on his dissertations, plus of course a truckload of articles on creationism. I'd say it can be upgraded to gold status.--JorisEnter (talk) 10:19, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
I agree; it lives up to everything on that list (and here's the talkpage discussion). That makes two for gold, then. David (and/or anyone), thoughts? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:07, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
I'll put up a notice in the bar to get some more people to comment on this.--JorisEnter (talk) 11:56, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Toss in a mention of the Shakespeare article while you're at it, will ya? That thing deserves to go Gold so bad (in this editor's humble opinion)... Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:18, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Oppose. The article is currently a badly organized hitpiece. If it was a well-organized hitpiece, I'd support. To wit:

1 Qualifications, or lack thereof
2 Scientific illiteracy

Two sections on qualifications?

4 Legal problems from 1995 to 2006
4.1 Criminal tax-related convictions in 2006
4.2 Other tax and legal issues
5 Activity in prison from 2007 to present
5.1 Phone calls, blogging, books and Youtube interviews
5.2 Lawsuits, legal filings and criminal contempt
5.3 Kent E. Hovind v. RationalMedia Foundation, et al
5.4 Mail fraud and criminal contempt charges and trial

Why break up his history into "free acts" and "imprisoned acts"? Moreover, the amount of space dedicated to dredging up legal failures of Hovind is about as long as those documenting his beliefs. Just because he's a shitty person doesn't mean his beliefs are shitty. The debunking should be longer than the hitpiece.

3 The $250,000 Challenge

First, why this section doesn't fall into one of the history sections boggles me. Second, surely this could go into a section on "creationism", to underscore how crazy AND how much of a deceitful debater he is?

6 Beliefs
6.1 Conspiracies and "Sovereign American"
6.2 Independent Baptist
6.3 The "Hovind Theory"
6.4 Lunar recession
6.5 Dinosaurs
6.6 Biblical contradictions
6.7 Misc.

Putting this all at the bottom is the final proof that this article is a hitpiece -- the fact that he's a lunatic apparently matters more than what his lunacy is, and why it's wrong. Each "section" of Hovind's beliefs should be its own (eg, Creationism, Sovereign Citizenry, etc.).

oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 22:56, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

"Qualifications" should be kept as a separate section IMO, because (a) for anyone speaking on science-related topics qualifications (or in this case the lack thereof) are relevant, and (b) Hovind is kind of (in)famous for his "dissertation".
"Beliefs" should be split up into one part dealing with his creationist beliefs and one about all the other nonsense (conspiracy nuttiness and such), and "Scientific illiteracy" and "the $250K challenge" should be merged into that first section.
I'm not entirely sure what to do with the two sections about his legal stuff: while they kind of deal with the same topic, they cover enough stuff on their own (the first his tax problems, the second pretty much all his other activities).--JorisEnter (talk) 11:32, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
First off, I think it's relevant to start out with his qualifications since that's also relevant as part of his bio - quite apart from the fact that he likes to pass himself off as an authority (this is similar to the structure of the William Lane Craig article). So my suggestion is a structure something like this:
  1. Qualifications
  2. Dr. Dino: Creationism & The "Hovind Theory" (with subsections for the relevant bits)
  3. The $250,000 Challenge (could be rolled into the creationism section)
  4. Other Beliefs (with subsections for each of them)
  5. Legal Problems
  6. Jail Time (could be combined with his legal antics into something like Legal Problems & Incarceration)
  7. Subsequent activities
My idea behind this is to start out with the relevant fact that Hovind is absolutely unqualified to pronounce with any sort of authority on scientific matters; then go on to his creationist tosh (for which he is arguably most famous, placing the videos and copyright sections here); then delve into his non-creationist ideas, such as the sovereign citizen (SC) stuff; and then point out that it is his SC acrobatics that ultimately got him in trouble with the law and in jail. The final section is then easily written and updated with his latest antics (probably more creationism and SC), so this last section is probably going to be rather short.
How does that idea sound to the rest of the mob? ScepticWombat (talk) 12:52, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Seems like a fine reorganisation of the article. The 250k challenge should be a subsection of the creationism bit. "Legal problems" and "Jail time" can probably be kept separate.--JorisEnter (talk) 13:07, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Another problem is that it's not clear whether Creation Science Evangelism was renamed, and whether the father or the son controls it. The Creation Science Evangelism page should be expanded (or if not subsumed within the Hovind page) since this would be an important supporting article. Bongolian (talk) 07:03, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
I agree-(Ir)RationalWikian (talk) 07:06, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

This needs a cover abstract.-(Ir)RationalWikian (talk) 07:08, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Good ideas all, but what do you think about my suggestions for reorganising the article? I'm not going to waste time reformatting it if there is not some sort of consensus on a new structure. ScepticWombat (talk) 09:48, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
A draft of the reorganisation: User:ScepticWombat/Kent Hovind. ScepticWombat (talk) 09:30, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Much better. Thank you! 10:54, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Okay, I've reformatted the article based on my userpage version, incl. Fuzzy's additions and incorporating the Creation Science Evangelism stub that Fuzzy has already replaced with a Kent/Eric Hovind fork (nice work, Fuzzy!). ScepticWombat (talk) 13:27, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Great work, guys! Time to whip up a cover abstract and get this thing certified as Gold? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:45, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Give it a few days for any further nitpicks - just put out a last call on the bar - David Gerard (talk) 21:15, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Remade the intro so that it's more cover-y. Improvements welcome. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 23:42, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Nobody has commented on /r/rationalwiki, and all /r/atheism comments have been incorporated. Cover time? Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 20:24, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
I have no objection. (That AMA from one of his school pupils is gold.) - David Gerard (talk) 10:54, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Support covering as well. The reorganisation has greatly improved readability and general niceness. That sign thingy is awesome as well.--JorisEnter (talk) 17:12, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
@DG Yeah, absolutely. Never mind his appearance on the friggin' Ali G show! I also support covering. We appear to have wide consensus now; let's do this people. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:47, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Has been golded and coverstory-ed.Applaud, tympani! Sound, trumpets!--JorisEnter (talk) 20:57, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

I emailed PZ Myers and he gave it a plug. With suggestions! - David Gerard (talk) 12:45, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

[edit] PZ Myers on Kent Hovind

PZ Myers mentions RationalWiki and has material that could perhaps improve this article. See Any story of Kent Hovind needs more Nazi imagery</ref> Proxima Centauri (talk) 14:56, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Already added it to RW:mentions, and added a quote from PZ to the Kent Hovind article (since DG already linked to this right above). Oh well. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:05, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Little detail on The Hovind "theory"

The article states that "According to [Hovind], a -300°C meteor on course for Earth fragmented;". Maybe the paragraph should also include the observation that this temperature is bellow absolute zero, so it's obviously another impossibility, and another chance for some more comments on Hovinds IQ. I'd edit it myself, but I'm new here and didn't want to just barge in and change things without asking. Rivendellyan (talk) 21:15, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello! If that is correct, then it's a great find. Also, props to you for talkpaging. You're free (and welcome) to try your way around editing, but people will always appreciate a good talk page notice before (greater) edits are made. Feel free to ask if you've lost your way on the site. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:32, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
The only source given is "Creation Seminars" or something along those lines so I can't check this, but if he actually said that then holy shit that's dumb. Not that I'd expect anything else from Hovind, but as a guy studying in the city of the great Heike Kamerlingh OnnesWikipedia's W.svg I almost take this as something of a personal insult.--JorisEnter (talk) 08:59, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, I think that these references are quite sloppy - especially given that all of lectures in the seminar are available on YT, so it would be nice to at least have references to which lecture each piece of Hovind BS was taken from.
As far as I can Google, it would seem that the silliness of the below absolute zero −300°C meteor is actually not true. While there is a reference to a "300° below zero ice meteor" in secondary sources, the actual origin is Hovind's Creation Seminar Lecture 6 (The Hovind Theory) which (at 38:05) makes it clear that he's talking about "−300° to −400° degrees Fahrenheit" (my emphasis), i.e. −184° to −240° Celsius (absolute zero = −273.15° Celsius or −459.67° Fahrenheit). Effin' 'muricans and their Fahrenheit, inches, pounds and other non-metrical scales... ;-) ScepticWombat (talk) 11:50, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
I got an edit conflict when I tried to post just now; turns out ScepticWombat had already checked it out too and replied at the same moment I did. My original post: Hovind slips out of the net on this one. I found the presentation where the claim is made. On the slide, he doesn't specify unit of temperature. But he states clearly (at 0:21), "minus three hundred Fahrenheit", or; about -184.4 degrees celsius. Which is probably a decent ballpark for the temperature of a meteor relatively far from its nearest star. Not minus 300 celsius. This guy doesn't need our help to put his own foot in his mouth. I'll make the corrections. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:54, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Sorry for the EC, Reverend. Btw, here's an entire playlist of Hovind's Creation Seminar crap, incl. subtitles and extra extended versions (gag...), so if anyone wants to beef up the citations, knock yourself out. ScepticWombat (talk) 12:58, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Nothing to apologize for, my good man! Even better, your post was clearly superior to mine. Regarding the EC, I was merely pointing out the minor novelty that we had both whipped up similar replies, having found sources separately, posting at the very same time... Regarding that link; Jesus fucking Christ! There's several in there that are like two hours long! "How to un-learn everything about the natural sciences"; just watch all those and really pay attention, and by the end of it, your previously coherent body of knowledge will be crawling with various random factoids. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:31, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Btw, the other vague, blind quotations from Creation Seminars (citation no. 77) seem to be from Lecture 5: The Dangers of Evolution (abortion & Satan + anti-vaxxing + eugenics/Nazism). Also, the creationist website I've cited here is quite useful as a shorthand guide to pinpoint in which lecture Kent Hovind deals with which topic. ScepticWombat (talk) 16:56, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

[edit] The new Mrs Hovind

According to this video, she apparently believes the world is at least 100,000 years old (see 5:26):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXrb3VbmN5Y

And she's a prolific anti-vaxxer:

https://www.google.it/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&rlz=1C1CHBF_en-GBGB696GB696&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=mary%20tocco%20vaccines

— Unsigned, by: 151.16.38.43 / talk / contribs -10:22, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Dear lord... Thankfully, if nothing else, they're way too old to have kids. (Unless...!) Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:40, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

[edit] If Hovind wanted a doctoral degree from a creationist college that is fine but

Why a diploma mill? Yes I know Hovind's "dissertation" was on par with a middle school level of work and he might have not made it in an accredited college but someone who is not that smart can still pass college course work and earn an actual degree. He could have went to San Diego Christian College, The Master's University, Andrews University or what ever. It just boggles the mind knowing other creationists got actual degrees at the doctoral level in natural sciences when they hold very similar views to Hovind. Yes I know Hovind (probably) has half a brain (That is being nice) but he could have went with a real school.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 15:00, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

[edit] Carboj dating

I've been watching a few rebuttals of Kent Hovind, most of Kent's views on carbon dating dating have been easily rebutted, but I need help debunking (or explaining) these claims on carbon dating by Kent Hovind:

https://youtu.be/TVuVYnHRuig

What specifically bothers me is his claim at the very start, that scientists take multiple dates and discard any dates that go against their predictions. It's been really worrying me. Can someone help me? Reg321(talk)

Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
support
Community
Tools